It's working...

[The Duke]

The breaking up of the attempted terror attack on aircraft over the Atlantic, or as I refer to it, "Bojinka II", proves one thing: Our efforts to defend the country are working.

The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq which have decapitated the leadership of Al Qaeda and ground down the manpower of the Jihadist movement, the Patriot Act, the signals monitoring and wiretap programs, and the other domestic security measures, all of it.  It's working.  The enemy just played its best card, and that card wasn't good enough.  It has to be a tough day for the flat-Earthers currently in hiding on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border who started this war.

After months of bad news from Iraq to Lebanon, it is nice to be reminded that we in the west are doing something right.

[The Duke]

With all respect, I have two questions:

1. If this attack wasn't organised, would you be trumpeting that Al-Qaeda has been so decapitated that it is incapable of attacking, and thus our efforts must continue in this area?

If this attack had not been organized, I most certainly would not be dismissing the threat of Al Qaeda as "so decapitated that it is incapable of attacking".  Quite the opposite!  Before I (or anyone else) even knew of this plot, I assumed that terrorist attacks were in the works and that the threat remained quite real.  And in spite of having broken up this attack, I still believe that other attacks are being planned right now and they have to be stopped.  I was right that Al Qaeda was planning such attacks, and I am right that they continue to do so.

2. If the attack had gone through, would you be demanding expansion of these programmes?

I would demand that, but I demand an expansion of these programs even though the attack was stopped, so whether the attack had succeeded or not doesn't really affect my position on that.

This victory does, however, validate those measures we have taken to protect our people, even if we could (and should) be doing more.  It also strongly suggests we should keep doing those things that are working for us.

So whether the attack had gone through or not, my position on whether we need to expand domestic security programs remains unchanged.

[The Duke]

If your position is unchanged based on whether or not the programs have been successful, then I believe the point was that you can't really take credit for their success as justification for them. You are basically saying you support them on philosophical grounds, not because of any evidence for their success. I think that was Alcon's point, that you can't have it both ways; if you are going to take credit for success in stopping terrorist attacks, you also have to be willing to take the blame if the policy were to fail to stop one.

In any event, I am very glad that the attack was thwarted, and kudos should go to those who helped make this possible, although I'm certainly not convinced that it was US policy specifically that was responsible. If hard evidence shows up that proves that it was, I'm certainly open to changing my position. I personally think that what we've lost in Iraq has far outweighed any gains, though I'm sure others would disagree.

You have badly misunderstood my post.

[The Duke]

My position is that the current set of domestic security policies have played a direct role in preventing this attack, and that without them, this attack would probably have succeeded.

That said, we can and should do more.  Our current policies were sufficient to prevent this attack, and their success validates their existence.  But they are not necessarily sufficient to prevent many of the attacks we will face in the future.